By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Paying landowners an incentive to retire from their own businesses because "Some older farmers are resistant to new "green" methods, Environment Secretary George Eustice believes, and he wants them to move on."
Mind you: "The average farmer currently receives about £21,000 in grants - although those who own large amounts of land, such as the Queen, have been receiving more than half a million pounds each year."
With a bit of "The government believes that younger farmers will be more open to new nature-friendly ideas and more inclined to seek income by diversifying into businesses such as camping or glamping."
Paying landowners an incentive to retire from their own businesses because "Some older farmers are resistant to new "green" methods, Environment Secretary George Eustice believes, and he wants them to move on."
Mind you: "The average farmer currently receives about £21,000 in grants - although those who own large amounts of land, such as the Queen, have been receiving more than half a million pounds each year."
With a bit of "The government believes that younger farmers will be more open to new nature-friendly ideas and more inclined to seek income by diversifying into businesses such as camping or glamping."
You don't need to look too hard to see what the aim is. UK farming in the main is costly, and none would survive without hefty subsidies.
So is that the best use of the land, growing crops that could be imported far cheaper ?
However that would mean free-ing the UK from agreed EU regulations, which would be a self serving action, given the UK's biggest market would not want the substandard food the UK would be producing. Nor could it trust that substandard food imported into the UK and would not then simply be sold to the EU - hence the NI border controls.
Redundant farm buildings/land would be converted into second/holiday homes, and tenant farmers would be shown the door so wealthy landowners could build far more profitable housing
I could be adding 2 and 2 to make four, but this might give a pointer " The government believes that younger farmers will be more open to new nature-friendly ideas and more inclined to seek income by diversifying..........." not methods of increasing food production, you will note.
It is the farmers I feel sorry for...........all that hard work putting up those LEAVE signs in their fields
0
Getting rid of farms on 13:52 - May 19 with 844 views
Paying landowners an incentive to retire from their own businesses because "Some older farmers are resistant to new "green" methods, Environment Secretary George Eustice believes, and he wants them to move on."
Mind you: "The average farmer currently receives about £21,000 in grants - although those who own large amounts of land, such as the Queen, have been receiving more than half a million pounds each year."
With a bit of "The government believes that younger farmers will be more open to new nature-friendly ideas and more inclined to seek income by diversifying into businesses such as camping or glamping."
Retiring and selling your farming business is lucrative enough without further financial incentives.
DEFRA officials will tell you on the quiet that farm subsidies are 'social security for farmers' (a direct quote) because non-farming folk expect the countryside to have a certain look to it.
Getting rid of farms on 14:44 - May 19 by factual_blue
Retiring and selling your farming business is lucrative enough without further financial incentives.
DEFRA officials will tell you on the quiet that farm subsidies are 'social security for farmers' (a direct quote) because non-farming folk expect the countryside to have a certain look to it.
yes,
trees and hedges....roads clear of mud from the field
the thought that dangerous chemicals have not been dumped
a bit old-fashioned the rest of the other 99.99999%
who expect the rules to apply to us all
0
Getting rid of farms on 15:15 - May 19 with 694 views
You don't need to look too hard to see what the aim is. UK farming in the main is costly, and none would survive without hefty subsidies.
So is that the best use of the land, growing crops that could be imported far cheaper ?
However that would mean free-ing the UK from agreed EU regulations, which would be a self serving action, given the UK's biggest market would not want the substandard food the UK would be producing. Nor could it trust that substandard food imported into the UK and would not then simply be sold to the EU - hence the NI border controls.
Redundant farm buildings/land would be converted into second/holiday homes, and tenant farmers would be shown the door so wealthy landowners could build far more profitable housing
I could be adding 2 and 2 to make four, but this might give a pointer " The government believes that younger farmers will be more open to new nature-friendly ideas and more inclined to seek income by diversifying..........." not methods of increasing food production, you will note.
It is the farmers I feel sorry for...........all that hard work putting up those LEAVE signs in their fields
Another way of looking at it (inadvertently for the government), is a great opportunity to cull the M.E.A.T. industry, thereby massively reducing the countries carbon footprint, water wastage and pollution towards the governments environmental treaty targets.
Freeing up and connecting huge amounts of land for "rewilding" projects etc (also remember that arable farming takes up a lot less room for more nutritional benefit).
Hey, could even take all of that subsidised land that the queen and Charlie boy has and give it to the national trust to look after.
But as you say, it will probably end up being another land grab by the already wealthy to make themselves more money. 😢
[Post edited 19 May 2021 15:26]
0
Getting rid of farms on 16:13 - May 19 with 626 views
Getting rid of farms on 15:15 - May 19 by lightuser
Another way of looking at it (inadvertently for the government), is a great opportunity to cull the M.E.A.T. industry, thereby massively reducing the countries carbon footprint, water wastage and pollution towards the governments environmental treaty targets.
Freeing up and connecting huge amounts of land for "rewilding" projects etc (also remember that arable farming takes up a lot less room for more nutritional benefit).
Hey, could even take all of that subsidised land that the queen and Charlie boy has and give it to the national trust to look after.
But as you say, it will probably end up being another land grab by the already wealthy to make themselves more money. 😢
[Post edited 19 May 2021 15:26]
Nothing is safe, that is/was publicly owned - school playing fields, hospital grounds, public car parks.............
So much is being transferred out of our hands, with barely a murmur
"Today, local government owns only about 40% as much land as it did four decades ago.
The NHS estate has been even more radically depleted, shrinking by around 70%. "
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
